Towards the end of the driver’s shift, he was asked to take the scheduled 9.31pm Luas tram into the city centre from the Red Cow depot and turn it around and bring it back to the depot for 9.59pm - one minute before the man was due to end his shift.

The driver refused to take the train and told his bosses that he was concerned that the least little delay would mean that he would have to overrun on his shift - and this was something he was anxious to avoid.

At the WRC hearing, the man gave no particular reason for this other than general inconvenience.

The driver made known his reluctance and was told that his Team Leader would contact him.

The Team Leader did contact him and the driver again said he was not happy to do the run as it would leave him running overtime and late.

The driver told the WRC he believed that once he had taken charge of the train, he would be expected to run it right through to its terminus in Tallaght and would not be allowed to get off at the Red Cow stop.

He was also concerned that if the train was to stop altogether at the Red Cow stop, he would be expected to bed down or de-prep the train for the night - which might take up to 20 minutes.

The Team Leader advised that the driver could leave the Dublin city centre terminus 5 minutes earlier than the time scheduled on the timetable in order to ensure that he got back to the Red Cow station with up to five minutes to spare.

But the driver still wasn't convinced.

The Adjudication Officer in the case, Penelope McGrath said she was was also asked to consider the poor atmosphere in the workplace in the aftermath of the fairly contentious strike action taken by the Luas drivers.

As a result of the driver’s refusal, the 8.31pm train did not leave the Red Cow Station and do the round trip into the city that it was meant to do.

Another driver was in a position to take the train at 9.59pm at the Red Cow stop and continue its journey to the end of business that day.

The Luas operator pointed out that the “refusal to undertake duties as specified in job description/contract of employment ” was behaviour which constitutes gross misconduct and therefore may result in summary dismissal.

The Luas operator believed that offering to allow the driver leave the Dublin terminus five minutes before it was scheduled and timetabled to leave demonstrated the company’s Bona fides towards its driver – if not towards the stranded travelling public.

The employer stressed there was never any question of the driver being expected to work on beyond 10pm as they always had a night driver coming to take on the train from the Red Cow Station at that time. This was not made known to the driver, but the driver didn't ask this question.

As a result of his refusal to operate the tram, the Luas firm issued a 12-month warning letter to the driver and he was appealing this sanction before the WRC.

The man’s employer told the WRC that leniency had been shown in not dismissing the man outright while representatives for the driver stated that his previous unblemished record should be taken into account.

In her ruling, Ms McGrath stated that she was satisfied the driver refused to perform a function which it was well within his employer’s rights to ask him to perform.

She said: “In those circumstances there seems to me to have been an inevitability to the triggering of an investigative/disciplinary process and once the claimant was found to have (wilfully and knowingly) refused to undertake duties, a disciplinary sanction had to follow.”

Recommending that the 12-month letter of warning remain in place, Ms McGrath stated: “On balance I would accept that the claimant was exposed to being dismissed for his conduct and that the employer did indeed apply leniency by giving him the lesser sanction of the 12 month letter of warning.”